The Poorhouse: Aunt Winnie, Glenn Beck, And The Politics Of The New Deal

[doc111]

If the main problem is that so many people are so poor that they can't afford health insurance now, how is forcing them to pay for it going to affect other areas of their lives? Will the poor now actually have to live outside because the cost of the government mandated insurance is too expensive and they cannot afford to pay rent or a mortgage?

You could try to make the same argument for Government Guaranteed school loans made to students who attend college too, but it didn't drive the cost of college down, it drove it sky high. Yet you had more people attending college than ever before.

Unintended consequences?

I'm glad you brought up higher education. It's the one thing that has outpaced inflation at a faster pace than even healthcare!

Unintended consequences indeed!

 

[redivider]

If the main problem is that so many people are so poor that they can't afford health insurance now, how is forcing them to pay for it going to affect other areas of their lives? Will the poor now actually have to live outside because the cost of the government mandated insurance is too expensive and they cannot afford to pay rent or a mortgage?

You could try to make the same argument for Government Guaranteed school loans made to students who attend college too, but it didn't drive the cost of college down, it drove it sky high. Yet you had more people attending college than ever before.

Unintended consequences?

there will be tax credits available. that's how they'll be able to afford it.

no, the poor won't have to live outside to pay for their insurance. somebody who's at that level of poverty will now be eligible for medicaid.

 

[doc111]

there will be tax credits available. that's how they'll be able to afford it.

no, the poor won't have to live outside to pay for their insurance. somebody who's at that level of poverty will now be eligible for medicaid.

I'm confused. Don't the poor already qualify for medicaid? Tax credits, ha! That's a good one! I have yet to see a tax credit cover the entire cost of something, or subsidize a good portion of it for that matter.

 

[NoDrama]

there will be tax credits available. that's how they'll be able to afford it.

no, the poor won't have to live outside to pay for their insurance. somebody who's at that level of poverty will now be eligible for medicaid.

A Tax credit? You mean they don't pay any taxes, but they will get a big enough refund to pay for any needed medical insurance? The Average US health insurance plan costs over $4,800 per year per person. So now your making 10k a year, you aren't paying any income tax and you are getting over 5K back each year to offset insurance costs? A Average Family pays $13k a year to cover the family, are they going to receive bonus checks from the gov for that amount? Seems kind of excessive to me, who will pay for it all?

 

[redivider]

I'm confused. Don't the poor already qualify for medicaid? Tax credits, ha! That's a good one! I have yet to see a tax credit cover the entire cost of something, or subsidize a good portion of it for that matter.

no. the really really poor qualify for medicaid.

tax credits will help people offset the costs of their medical insurance.

i'm sure you guys know all of this shit already, then again, that might be expecting too much....

 

[NoDrama]

tax credits will help people offset the costs of their medical insurance.

Oh I see, they aren't going to receive all the money needed, just some "Help" so $1 would be considered help right? In other words, go get poorer so you can maybe get help if you are hurt and you will have to pay for it instead of just going to the E room. I think most people will just continue to present at the E-Room, even if they have tax help, paying nothing is preferable to paying anything.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

You honestly think that people who now have to ability to avoid a health emergency won't? Why because they are lazy? Dumb? Unemployed? Employed by a business that doesn't provide health care?
We end up paying for ER visits anyway, why wouldn't you rather pay for its prevention at half or a quarter of it's cost?

No wonder why conservative administrations never ran a budget surplus in the past three decades...they can't do simple math and prediction.

You really want to know why small business is struggling so much? It has a lot to do with the fact that no one wants to work for an employer that doesn't provide health care. I pay next to 8,000 dollars out of my paycheck for my health coverage. Its about a 17,000 dollar family health plan. That means that in order for my to even get and afford that plan on my own, which I wouldn't qualify for as an individual, a small business would have to pay me 17K more than I get now for it to be worth my time. Unless you are a vet, on medicare, or covered by a spouse, working for a small business that doesn't provide health coverage is a last resort, hence forth why they have trouble expanding and growing. Employee health care far over shadows any current, past, or future small business tax expenditure changes on the table. Without coverage, you ain't getting the talent needed.

And even to expand on that, since most people are covered by employer plans, the cheaper health care gets, the more money businesses make. That is just as good as a tax cut, as a matter of fact it is even better. The more health care drops in cost, the more money businesses make, the less medicare has to spend, and therefore businesses make more money, have money capital to hire people and make the products cheaper and more competitive, and along with that, it helps with paying off the national debt and deficit.

Thank god political and financial geniuses like yourself are so attune to these facts that you defeated any chance of that being a reality. The best part of which is that I don't even have to provide data that you won't understand or believe, this is pure, good 'ol common sense that you are incapable of comprehending.

I really wanted to stop replying to posts on this thread because it is truly a pointless waste of my time, but you just keep on making the most out of this world statements that I have to write half as much now. Thanks for saving me time!

Oh I see, they aren't going to receive all the money needed, just some "Help" so $1 would be considered help right? In other words, go get poorer so you can maybe get help if you are hurt and you will have to pay for it instead of just going to the E room. I think most people will just continue to present at the E-Room, even if they have tax help, paying nothing is preferable to paying anything.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

I suppose if you ensure the governments failure by your opposition of the good it is doing, and then blame the government for not doing any good, that makes you an idiot, not a libertarian. There is a reason that you only hear about government intrusion in the private sector. You never hear of the private sectors intrusion into the government. No one dares to buck the lobbyists, they are untouchable. Name one person on the tea party, or libertarian party that will stand up to the lobbying powers. Thats the cherished and untouchable private sector. What you fail to see is that you are on the offensive against big government, and in order for that to work you also have to be on the offensive against big business. You can't go after one without addressing the other.

 

[doc111]

 

[NLXSK1]

I suppose if you ensure the governments failure by your opposition of the good it is doing, and then blame the government for not doing any good, that makes you an idiot, not a libertarian. There is a reason that you only hear about government intrusion in the private sector. You never hear of the private sectors intrusion into the government. No one dares to buck the lobbyists, they are untouchable. Name one person on the tea party, or libertarian party that will stand up to the lobbying powers. Thats the cherished and untouchable private sector. What you fail to see is that you are on the offensive against big government, and in order for that to work you also have to be on the offensive against big business. You can't go after one without addressing the other.

Umm... Yeah...

I am for a flat consumption tax that cannot be raised on any individual group although it could be lowered.

Do you know how much power would be taken away from the legislature if they couldnt mess with the general tax code? It would significantly reduce lobbying in Congress.

So yeah, YOU CONSTRUCTED ANOTHER STRAWMAN AND ATTACKED IT!!! Bravo!!! *golfclaps*

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

No i didn't, what I brought up is a real problem, which for once in over 50 posts you actually addressed and found common ground with. Straw Man? no... Real issue? yes.

It must feel good actually addressing a real situation for once this week. Kinda like taking a good shit. Yeah?

Umm... Yeah...

I am for a flat consumption tax that cannot be raised on any individual group although it could be lowered.

Do you know how much power would be taken away from the legislature if they couldnt mess with the general tax code? It would significantly reduce lobbying in Congress.

So yeah, YOU CONSTRUCTED ANOTHER STRAWMAN AND ATTACKED IT!!! Bravo!!! *golfclaps*

 

[doc111]

Umm... Yeah...

I am for a flat consumption tax that cannot be raised on any individual group although it could be lowered.

Do you know how much power would be taken away from the legislature if they couldnt mess with the general tax code? It would significantly reduce lobbying in Congress.

So yeah, YOU CONSTRUCTED ANOTHER STRAWMAN AND ATTACKED IT!!! Bravo!!! *golfclaps*

But, but we are just too stupid to understand that we need an enormous, inefficient, unmanageable, lumbering giant of a government to take care of us all. You see, it's not about creating opportunites, Oh no! It's about making sure everybody has the same shit (except for our blessed politicians and the elilte) and that everyone has 'enough' and nobody has 'too much'. Somehow the progressives like to portray anybody that doesn't buy into their ideology as 'selfish'. I've always been a firm believer in teaching a man to fish as opposed to just giving him a fish. That is worth so much more than forcing him to become dependent upon ME for his survival.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

The reason we fell behind is that "people wanted to hold on to their money" instead of contributing to the success of a nation. A nation in which the rich grew their success in, and reaped the benefits of what was built for them from the contributers of the past. Now, people are brainwashed that contributing to a nation is "socialism" instead of the "patriotism". It's people like you that believe that once you've made your money, the country has served its purpose for you and now it's time to complain. Once this country puts its people first, it will remember that it is a government of the people, and that the better the people do, the better the government will do, the better the nation does. Wealth and success follows the well being of the people, not the other way around.

America used to be a leader, not a follower. Too bad the liberals want to turn it into France...

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Half the reason the government is so big is that we have a complex, overcharged, and contrived medicare system that only serves a small population of the nation, instead of an open health care market with a cost saving public option that would benefit the entire nation (god forbid there be competition in the health industry). We have thousands of financial reform laws (with individual reg. forces behind them) to tip toe around the fact that we just didn't reinstate one law, with one regulatory force: glass-steagall. We have tons of food inspectors on vegetable farms around the nation, under strict food safety laws, instead of a healthy quantity of inspectors in the meat industry (which was exempt from the law) where e. coli and salmonella originate from. We spend billions of dollars on defense contractors (especially ones that our former politicians worked for) to build very costly, poorly made structures, instead of using the army core of engineers.

Seems to me that big government has a lot to do with the private sector influence too.

But, but we are just too stupid to understand that we need an enormous, inefficient, unmanageable, lumbering giant of a government to take care of us all. You see, it's not about creating opportunites, Oh no! It's about making sure everybody has the same shit (except for our blessed politicians and the elilte) and that everyone has 'enough' and nobody has 'too much'. Somehow the progressives like to portray anybody that doesn't buy into their ideology as 'selfish'. I've always been a firm believer in teaching a man to fish as opposed to just giving him a fish. That is worth so much more than forcing him to become dependent upon ME for his survival.

 

[NLXSK1]

No i didn't, what I brought up is a real problem, which for once in over 50 posts you actually addressed and found common ground with. Straw Man? no... Real issue? yes.

It must feel good actually addressing a real situation for once this week. Kinda like taking a good shit. Yeah?

You accused me and other libertarians of being for big business and lobbiests (that is known as constructing a strawman) and attacked us for it.

I simply showed you the error of your argument.

Most Americans want the same things, we just completely disagree how to go about it.

 

[doc111]

Half the reason the government is so big is that we have a complex, overcharged, and contrived medicare system that only serves a small population of the nation, instead of an open health care market with a cost saving public option that would benefit the entire nation (god forbid there be competition in the health industry). We have thousands of financial reform laws (with individual reg. forces behind them) to tip toe around the fact that we just didn't reinstate one law, with one regulatory force: glass-steagall. We have tons of food inspectors on vegetable farms around the nation, under strict food safety laws, instead of a healthy quantity of inspectors in the meat industry (which was exempt from the law) where e. coli and salmonella originate from. We spend billions of dollars on defense contractors (especially ones that our former politicians worked for) to build very costly, poorly made structures, instead of using the army core of engineers.

Seems to me that big government has a lot to do with the private sector influence too.

I am fairly sure that a fellow libertarian mentioned allowing interstate insurance competition as one way of chipping away at this enormously complicated problem. You can't point to any one thing that is driving cost. It's many factors, but I don't need to tell you all this. You already got it all figured out right?

I also agree with reforming or doing away with lobbying in Washington. Doing away with it altogether is probably pie in the sky but one can dream. Of course certain elements of the private sector are inexorably linked to government and vice versa. Some of these things need to be fixed as well. One example is how industry insiders tend to go back and forth into the regulatory bodies that are supposed to be overseeing them. We can't be having the wolf watching the chicken coop. It doesn't make good sense now does it?

A lot of things need to change. It's been said many times and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we all seem to agree that these problems need fixing. We simply disagree on the methods. That's all. Almost every libertarian I know volunteers their time and donates to charity. Most are engaged civically and are very concerned with the many problems facing our country. For some reason we are portrayed as 'selfish' or 'paranoid' of government. A little distrust of government is a good thing.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

I was stating that I see a lot of anti-government talk, without addressing the causes of governments the influences. Like I said you can't solve one without the other. Instead of the size of the government, I would be first concerned about its efficiency. I don't necessarily blame it all on bureaucracy, as much as I blame it on being applied in the wrong method. Your pissed about medicare? good, I am too. Its terrible that the publics money is the only money not allowed to negotiate pharmaceutical costs. Its terrible that we let the private sector suck medicare dry with the outrageous costs it charges us for. Those costs are artificially inflated due to the very design of the industry. Those artificially inflated costs jack up private insurance rates, public subsidies, health care education, administrative costs, and more. Yes, tort reform will play a role as well...

So it looks through my eyes that it isn't the size of government that is the problem in that regard, it is the design of the system, mixed with the way that it affects the government. Seeing as how you and I pay into the problem either privately or publically, we ought to find a way to drive down the costs across the board, instead of paying overly inflated prices. For the money we spend both publicly and privately, there is no reason that we can't cover everyone in this nation and see no drop in quality what so ever, probably even an increase in overall health statistics.

Every other industry, subsidized or not, has to deal with competition, and even then you find massive corporate corruption. Basically the entire health care industry is a bubble, that has grown powerful enough to pave the way to end any free market limitations and consequences that coming along with price rigging and market control, imagine what is going on behind the scenes.

Not to over-focus on health care, but it is such a prime example of the my opposing views hypocrisy on their ideals. This distinguishes that in some cases an overall smaller government, and smaller debt can be achieved by addressing the proper amount of private influence and the proper amount of public influence. In this case, you may need more public influence, but in return the money spent will yield a much larger return than it currently does. The reverberations of such an act will greatly help all aspects of american employers, bolstering their bottom line. Now, about the taxes. Currently employers are spending a ton of inefficient dollars on employee health care, and still paying into medicare through taxes. They would spend much less with a public option and an open market involved. Taxes would increase, but due to competition the efficiency if the tax dollars spent would be much higher than the initial health care plans high costs. Therefore, it would have a gross OVERALL decrease in expenditures, most benefiting smaller employers.

I am merely saying that the size of government and it's debt shouldn't go on a massive chopping block prior to stream lining and re-targeting it's core current programs and expenditures. Government has a place in health care, so instead of making it the best presence possible, you and your peers advocate eliminating it, which would destroy the country. Single handily destroy the nation. It would make the housing bubble look like a play date.

You accused me and other libertarians of being for big business and lobbiests (that is known as constructing a strawman) and attacked us for it.

I simply showed you the error of your argument.

Most Americans want the same things, we just completely disagree how to go about it.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

I have to say that the tone of your arguments and the practicality of your solutions differs vastly with the general consensus of libertarians I come across. Not that I agree on you, but I have a high level of respect for a level-headed, well toned stand point, especially since you have taken considerations of the other sides POV.

I am fairly sure that a fellow libertarian mentioned allowing interstate insurance competition as one way of chipping away at this enormously complicated problem. You can't point to any one thing that is driving cost. It's many factors, but I don't need to tell you all this. You already got it all figured out right?

I also agree with reforming or doing away with lobbying in Washington. Doing away with it altogether is probably pie in the sky but one can dream. Of course certain elements of the private sector are inexorably linked to government and vice versa. Some of these things need to be fixed as well. One example is how industry insiders tend to go back and forth into the regulatory bodies that are supposed to be overseeing them. We can't be having the wolf watching the chicken coop. It doesn't make good sense now does it?

A lot of things need to change. It's been said many times and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we all seem to agree that these problems need fixing. We simply disagree on the methods. That's all. Almost every libertarian I know volunteers their time and donates to charity. Most are engaged civically and are very concerned with the many problems facing our country. For some reason we are portrayed as 'selfish' or 'paranoid' of government. A little distrust of government is a good thing.

 

[doc111]

I was stating that I see a lot of anti-government talk, without addressing the causes of governments the influences. Like I said you can't solve one without the other. Instead of the size of the government, I would be first concerned about its efficiency. I don't necessarily blame it all on bureaucracy, as much as I blame it on being applied in the wrong method. Your pissed about medicare? good, I am too. Its terrible that the publics money is the only money not allowed to negotiate pharmaceutical costs. Its terrible that we let the private sector suck medicare dry with the outrageous costs it charges us for. Those costs are artificially inflated due to the very design of the industry. Those artificially inflated costs jack up private insurance rates, public subsidies, health care education, administrative costs, and more. Yes, tort reform will play a role as well...

So it looks through my eyes that it isn't the size of government that is the problem in that regard, it is the design of the system, mixed with the way that it affects the government. Seeing as how you and I pay into the problem either privately or publically, we ought to find a way to drive down the costs across the board, instead of paying overly inflated prices. For the money we spend both publicly and privately, there is no reason that we can't cover everyone in this nation and see no drop in quality what so ever, probably even an increase in overall health statistics.

Every other industry, subsidized or not, has to deal with competition, and even then you find massive corporate corruption. Basically the entire health care industry is a bubble, that has grown powerful enough to pave the way to end any free market limitations and consequences that coming along with price rigging and market control, imagine what is going on behind the scenes.

Not to over-focus on health care, but it is such a prime example of the my opposing views hypocrisy on their ideals. This distinguishes that in some cases an overall smaller government, and smaller debt can be achieved by addressing the proper amount of private influence and the proper amount of public influence. In this case, you may need more public influence, but in return the money spent will yield a much larger return than it currently does. The reverberations of such an act will greatly help all aspects of american employers, bolstering their bottom line. Now, about the taxes. Currently employers are spending a ton of inefficient dollars on employee health care, and still paying into medicare through taxes. They would spend much less with a public option and an open market involved. Taxes would increase, but due to competition the efficiency if the tax dollars spent would be much higher than the initial health care plans high costs. Therefore, it would have a gross OVERALL decrease in expenditures, most benefiting smaller employers.

I am merely saying that the size of government and it's debt shouldn't go on a massive chopping block prior to stream lining and re-targeting it's core current programs and expenditures. Government has a place in health care, so instead of making it the best presence possible, you and your peers advocate eliminating it, which would destroy the country. Single handily destroy the nation. It would make the housing bubble look like a play date.

I certainly don't speak for all libertarians but when I say I want 'smaller government' it's sort of all encompassing. Yes, I believe government needs to become more efficient. They need to reduce waste and fraud. In my eyes, reducing spending is tantamount to reducing the size and influence of government. Some regulations are prohibitive and serve no purpose other than to extract fees and fines from people and businesses and create a maze of red tape that has become nearly impossible to navigate. We can't protect everyone from everything and IMO we shouldn't. Have you read some of the warnings on products these days? My wife bought a hair dryer that actually warns her against using it while sleeping!!!!! Sleeping?????? Seriously??? Of course we need regulations but we need to evaluate which ones serve to protect us and which ones are sucking us dry. Look, you're never gonna make everyone happy. Especially in a country of over 300 million people, it's just not possible to please everyone.

 

[NLXSK1]

Here is what you need to understand about me.

I dont think healthcare is a right.

I dont believe you should be able to sue a doctor for anything but criminal negligence.

I do not believe so because you have to confiscate funds from one person and give them to another for care and I consider that a re-distribution of wealth.

Now, we have a system where you pay money to a bookie to ensure that you dont become financially ruined due to a major health issue.

First of all I would like the government to be completely removed from healthcare. Healthcare is simply goods and services that should be offered to the patients directly and not through a 3rd party provider. This would eliminate 99% of the paperwork and 99% of the fraud. The reason for this is that the payments would be point of sale transactions.

Take Lasic surgery for example. The prices are posted up front and the procedures are cash register transactions where the patient pays directly at the time of the service. The prices have been dropping ever since the technology was developed. The prices continue to drop because there is intense competition for those patients. A hundred dollar difference in the surgery between company 'A' and company 'B' may make the decision. Due to this competition the companies are forced to be honest about keeping the costs down. It is the way the free market works. If somebody makes a huge profit on something then other people come in and undercut the price or develop a cheaper product to compete. The great thing about it is the economic mechanism is self regulating.

Now, if you could sit down and clearly see that your liver surgery would be 60K at hospital 'A' and 90K at hospital 'B' you might have alot more information about your medical costs and choices about what services you may want.

Also, doctors should be able to group together and provide private insurance. There have been private tests of a system like this and it is enormously popular and far cheaper than normal health plans. You pay for your basic care on a monthly basis or at point of payment and if you have emergency medical issues they are taken care of as part of the insurance. Because there is no 3rd party provider the paperwork is eliminated. Again, paperwork and regulation are HUGE burdens on healthcare.

Also, we have to understand that doctors are human and I think that nuisance lawsuits cause an enormous cost on the system. Therefore, I would say that unless a doctor is criminally negligent you should not be able to sue them. Our politicians have that protection, why cant our doctors? I would recommend a board of medical review to assess all complaints and have the ability to sanction doctors or remove their licenses for lesser offenses but would shield them from prosecution. The way the system is now, if a surgery does not work 100% it opens the doctor up to a lawsuit even though the risks are known in advance.

Finally, we have to understand that the medical ability to save a life has become far in excess of what it once was in terms of both ability and cost. What that means is that no matter what the government tells you, there is no way to provide 100% quality care for 100% of the population through a reasonable amount of taxation. It is simply impossible.

So, just like poor people cannot buy a mercedes benz and just like poor people cannot buy a 20 room mansion, the poor cannot expect society or the government to shell out millions of dollars per each person's individual health care.

The whole system is completely broken just like immigration, taxation, etc. Somehow you think the government can fix the monster they created and make it better (show me a government program where this has happened) or... we can force the government, insurance companies and lawyers out of the system. Then maybe we can shave a zero off of all of the medical bills in this country and allow many more people to actually pay for healthcare out of their pockets.

Originally healthcare was offered through business as a BENEFIT of employment. Now the government is forcing companies to pay it as a RIGHT. The direction we are going is unconstitutional and will only lead to higher prices and lower care.